Conservatives: if abortion were made illegal, would you be willing to fund orpha

Given a choice between supporting the child with tax money or paying for the abortion, I would choose to pay taxes to subsidize the raising of the child. Unfortunately, I am not given this choice, some portion of my tax money goes towards publicly funded abortions. In fact, about 14% of all abortions are totally paid for with public funds (tax revenue). This money is taken from me without my consent or my input.

Now, if you decide that we should offer tax money to raise children, you must therefore set up an index on who qualifies and for how much. Since about 13.8% of all abortions are obtained by women with family incomes over $60,000 annually, I think we could leave them out of the equation entirely. These women do, in fact, already obtain tax credits and deductions and exemptions, which should pretty much cover any public duty towards raising their children.

Another 38% of abortions are obtained by women who are middle class, that is, earning between $30,000 and $59,999 per year. Again, these women are eligible to all of the same tax credits as anyone with a qualifying dependent. But do we believe that women of middle class incomes need more help to raise the child? Sure, take my tax dollars out of the abortion fund and do some subsidies for child care so these women can continue to work and earn a living without spending half of it on day care. I would prefer my taxes pay to ease the burden of working mothers. When I had my kids, I was earning about $30,000 and my day care bill was over $11,000.

Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,000 account for 19.5% of abortions and women with incomes under $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions.
Here, you may have a better argument about needing to subsidize the care and raising of a child. However, do we have any limits on that?

By limits I mean, how many children do we allow them to conceive and raise on tax dollars? As 93% of all abortions are sought for social reasons, that is, the child is unwanted or inconvenient, how many inconveniences will we allow per woman?

My point is that there is a lot to the entire issue of abortion, taxes and the political frenzy that surrounds the whole question. It is very easy to say, this number of children were aborted, but raising them would have cost X amount of dollars, which do you want to pay for? Well, since most abortions are obtained for reasons of "inconvenience", I would say I don't want to pay for any of those.
But I do anyway, without my consent.

How about a question that asks "does your government have the right to take tax money from you to fund a woman's right not to be inconvenienced"?

By the way, in a recent Gallup poll, 51% of Americans identified themselves as pro-life.

I would rather spend billions of dollars to support children than to bail out millionares so yes, I would not object to supporting these children. I would like to point out that they would not be technically orphans but instead would go into the foster care system until they were adopted (unless the mother found adoptive parents before the child was born, which is not that hard because my ex-sister in law was able to do this for her last child).

I would also rather give my tax dollars to fund not only the pill but other methods of birth controll such as the shot, the ring, and the patch, along with condoms, visectamies, and tying tubes (sorry I do not know the medical term) instead of the morning after pill. I know that these methods when used correctly work and are no more harmful than any other medication that is FDA approved.

I am pro-life and I wouldn't ever have an abortion. I am not sure which political party I support. In my home country it is possible for ladies to have abortions on the National Health Scheme. I would happily pay tax to care for unwanted babies and children. I am a parent so I know how much is costs to raise a child. I think of aborted babies as the missing people of the world. It would be wonderful if abortion become illegal. However it would be likely back street abortions would take place and that might be dangerous.

I would so adopt some of those children in a heart beat and I could point you in the direction of sites that have thousands of women, families that would adopt as well.

i am willing to fund the orphan..if i have any money:P
but i'm really against abortion. we don't have the right to take a life of a child that wanna see this world.

There are a couple things that I would like to point out to you:

Those 800,000 babies that are dying each year, if they were instead put up for adoption, taken care of by the biological parents, or even put into foster care, those children would eventually grow up and become adults. They would most likely go to college, get a job, and eventually pay back their debt to society. Are we receiving anything back from our investment of nearly $350,000 annually to Planned Parenthood?

Not every child that is saved from abortion goes into foster care. In fact, I have personally witnessed hundreds of women who have changed their minds about abortion throughout the years, and I could count on one hand... in fact, just a couple fingers, how many of their children are in foster care.

Last of all, how can you put a price on a child. Seriously? Would you be able to walk into a daycare facility with 30 children (lets say they're all foster children, who haven't yet found adoptive parents) could you look each one in the eye, and then give them a lethal injection simply because we can't afford them? There are over 30 abortions in the US every 10 minutes.